Trump Just Attacked Scott Walker For Being Too Conservative

Real estate mogul Donald Trump continues to reveal his true leftist colors, smearing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) for being too conservative.

After Walker endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Trump unleashed a barrage of leftist talking points against Walker.

"There’s a $2.2 billion deficit and the schools were going begging and everything was going begging because he didn’t want to raise taxes ’cause he was going to run for president," Trump said. "So instead of raising taxes, he cut back on schools, he cut back on highways, he cut back on a lot of things."

Townhall's Guy Benson points out that Trump had previously leveled this smear towards Walker in September, even though The Washington Post, PolitiFact and FactCheck.org – all of which are leftist fact-checkers – all discredited the attack. Wisconsin had a projected $2.2 billion deficit at one point in 2014, but there was never an actual deficit since state law requires the budget to be balanced, which is what Walker did. Radio host Charlie Sykes confronted Trump on his lie, and Trump put the onus on Time Magazine, even though the magazine got the number from Trump himself.

But what's even more disturbing is that Trump's criticism of Walker suggests that Trump's first instinct is to raise taxes to balance the budget rather than conservative spending, which used to be a cardinal sin in Republican primaries. It's also bad economics, as economist Thomas Sowell explains:

In 1920, when the top tax rate was 73 percent, for people making over $100,000 a year, the federal government collected just over $700 million in income taxes-- and 30 percent of that was paid by people making over $100,000. After a series of tax cuts brought the top rate down to 24 percent, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income tax revenue-- and people making over $100,000 a year now paid 65 percent of the taxes.

How could that be? The answer is simple: People behave differently when tax rates are high as compared to when they are low. With low tax rates, they take their money out of tax shelters and put it to work in the economy, benefitting themselves, the economy and government, which collects more money in taxes because incomes rise.

High tax rates which very few people are actually paying, because of tax shelters, do not bring in as much revenue as lower tax rates that people are paying. It was much the same story after tax cuts during the Kennedy administration, the Reagan administration and the Bush Administration.

With conservatives growing increasingly distrustful of Trump, this smear against Walker will only continue to drive a wedge between Trump and conservatives going forward.

Your reply is right on.

There is two sides of the coin to understanding the phenomenon of Donald Trump. The first is to understand the con man and the second is to understand our human nature which desires to be conned. In November 2009 I wrote this lengthy reply:

We have buyer' s remorse because we begged Obama to flimflam us and he cheerfully and expertly did so. Now we want to blame Obama because we are disillusioned.

When we as a society eternally ricochet from candidate to candidate always hoping and too often believing that this time this man will produce the magic which will excuse us from our own willful dereliction of duty as citizens, the results are not only predictable but inevitable.

This quadrennial lusting after a political savior is fully in keeping with our human natures. But it does reflect well on us. It is an ignoble trait because it reveals us to be intellectually lazy and emotionally dependent. We were flimflamed by Obama not just because the media worked the crowd while he was on stage, we were taken in because we wanted to be taken in. We were vulnerable because we had not done our homework long before Barak Obama became a household tongue twister. Most of us have an inchoate understanding of our political process and a thoroughly distorted notion of constitutional governance. We have no well considered political philosophy so we seek not to evaluate policy but to judge the man. In the television age that rapidly deteriorates into a beauty contest.

In that televised beauty contest it is Katie Couric who controls the lighting, the camera angles, the editing, and the background music. Is it any wonder that conservative candidates get treated no better than Miss California? Is it any wonder that Barack Obama is literally treated as a Messiah? Is it any wonder that the best of Sarah Palin and the worst of Barack Obama are left on the cutting room floor?

Why do we yield the likes of Katie Couric power over ourselves? Why do we permit ourselves to be so deceived? Why do we want to be taken in by such a transparent siren as, "yes we can," or, "we are the one," when such bumper stickers are not intrinsically compelling, rather, by any objective test are simply mindless?

We are beaten on the one hand by the cynics who say, there is no difference among politicians, it matters not whom you vote for, they are all the same, and apathy, therefore, is the only rational reaction. It is the only way to save yourself from the liars. The only choice is not to choose otherwise you are participating in the sham and, God forbid, you will look foolish.

We are beaten on the other side by the mythmakers, both those who lionize and those who demonize. So Camelot was constructed around a psychotic and compulsive sex addict and a man who was addicted to psychotropic drugs. This myth was so firmly attached to the American psyche that literally no debauchery committed by his youngest brother would disillusion Massachusetts voters. It is folly to underestimate the power of the myth which idolizes an individual. That was why I posted so many times before the last election that Barack Obama had to be morally destroyed or the election was lost.

Equally, demonization myths are not to be underestimated. The mythmakers have denigrated Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, George W. Bush, Dan Quayle, and Sarah Palin, to mention some obvious examples, as stupid. Consider the myth that Richard Nixon is evil. This was well planted and nurtured long before he became president as a result of this politicking against communists in California and his association in the Alger Hiss affair. When Nixon was revealed to be as corrupt, but perhaps no more corrupt than Roosevelt, Kennedy, or Johnson who had recently preceded him in office, he could not escape the consequences for essentially the same acts which they had committed but for which they received no contemporaneous scrutiny and no adverse sanction.

We are beaten into the belief that our solution is in the person and not in the philosophy. We are beaten into the belief that we find truth by identifying the most trustworthy messenger. So if we believed Walter Cronkite we believed that the Vietnam war was lost. If we believed the successor to Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, we believed that George Bush cheated his way out of combat in Vietnam. If we believe those scientists that the media tells us we should believe, we are alarmed at global warming. If we are conditioned into accepting the truth of the message because we accept the trustworthiness of the messenger, we will accept the emotionally easy path of voting for the man and not the philosophy. We will be eternally seeking a Messiah and we will be eternally disillusioned.

By the way, we are not immune from this distemper here on Free Republic where one often reads that some opinion or another ought to be dismissed because the author of it is a liberal. This is the path of know nothingness , isolation, and minority status. This is the conservative world, our beliefs are the correct beliefs and they can stand scrutiny and challenge. To withdraw from the Fray is to commit our belief system to corruption, to a gradual death because we cannot correct ourselves. Is insupportable unless you believe that all conservatives are infallible all the time. It is not the man who brings us the truth but the truth which illuminates the man. No better example of this exists than the biography of Sarah Palin.

As long as we as a commonweal whore after the emotional release of surrender to a false Messiah, statists will have the advantage over us. Our commitment is to the principles of conservatism and not to an individual, not even Sarah Palin, not Glenn Beck, and not Rush Limbaugh. Our belief system is righteous and fully capable of meeting every test the left can throw at it. The one thing it cannot overcome is that folly which infects the rest of our culture.

I’m disappointed that you are doubling down on this condescending and insulting explanation of Trump supporters: that they are flawed in various ways including limited IQ, gullibility, intellectually laziness, emotional desperation, willful dereliction. We are inchoate, mindless, whoring after a false messiah, and that is only a sampling of the pejorative adjectives used to describe our flaws.

I know that you included yourself as one of the flawed, saying “we” have been fooled. I know that some of those descriptions were originally aimed at Obama followers rather than Trump followers, but that comparison is perhaps the most insulting thing of all.

My reasons for supporting Donald Trump bear not the slighting resemblance to those you list, and the many Trump supporters I know or have spoken with do not at all fit your condescending profile of a Trump supporter.

Apparently, supporting Donald Trump is so unthinkable to you that you must imagine us as damaged, mindless fools in order to reconcile the fact that we even exist.

I’ve explained my reasons for supporting Trump, but it seems to fall on deaf ears.

1. Trump acts like a teenager. Deeper point is teenagers are narcissists (as a phase). ...Trump's narcissism (as an identity) explains a lot.

2. Narcissists don't feel guilt, only shame.... Few principles, only the opinions of others. ....Hence, Trump fetishes for polls...

3. A narcissist can ‘protect himself’ even from shame, by surrounding himself only with sycophants.

4. Changing narcissists’ behavior almost impossible because they have selective memories bordering on delusion... No consistency.

5. A narcissist can't imagine a reason for behavior beyond attention-seeking... Hence Trump's accusations.

6. Narcissists are bad at logical argument because it requires principles and imagining reasonability of others’ ideas.

7. Living in a zero-sum world of fame or shame, narcissists are utterly vindictive against perceived slights.

8. Narcissists don't have win-win solutions.... All interactions have winners and losers.

9. For a narcissist, no matter what happens, it's somebody else’s fault...hence Trumps blame games.

10. If a narcissist can't be stopped, he has to be avoided, because he will suck you in and you'll go down with him.

DDT only mentions a company when they have an agreement or he owes them a favor or he promised to put ads in their pitiful pages. He did the bald eagle on his desk thing with Time. Providentially the eagle went for him and the mocking video is also out there.

DDT gets his hair mussed up, too...LOL...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdC3ETaiOHc

As a photographer (family portraits) I learned that watching the dynamic of the family while taking their photo revealed so much about their sociology. So I wanted to read what the photographer said about DDT.

http://time.com/4003904/donald-trump-bald-eagle/

Behind TIME’s Cover Shoot with Donald Trump and an American Bald Eagle

Olivier Laurent Aug 20, 2015

“When Martin Schoeller scrolled through the 28 close-up portraits he had taken of Donald Trump, he was struck to see that they were all identical. “Every frame was the same,” Schoeller says. “Mr. Trump knows exactly how he looks, and he strikes one pose and doesn’t move.”

***snip***

“He’s very difficult to photograph,” says Schoeller. “If you ask him to look up a little bit, he says no or he just doesn’t do it. He literally has one angle. If I ask him to smile, he puts on a big grin and then he goes back to his Zoolander ‘blue steel’ look. And the ‘blue steel’ stays for as ever long as it takes to get the photograph.”

[if the photographer had bribed him, oops, made a deal with him then he probably would have lifted his chin a bit]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.